9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed its provisional attachment. There is no substance in the Petitioners contention that having seized the property under Section 17 of the PML Act, the State was bound to apply for continuation of seizure under sub-section (4) of that section, and not exercise powers under Section 5 of the PML Act. The initial search followed by seizure may well be under Section 17 of the PML Act, but if the Director had reason to believe that the seized property was proceeds of crime and was likely to be dealt with by the person from whose possession it was seized, the Director may still choose to act under Section 5 of the PML Act and order its provisional attachment - The two provisions, namely, Sections 5 and 17 are not mutually exclusive alternativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , against whom action is taken, is found to be in possession of proceeds of crime as defined in Section 2(u) of the PML Act and, secondly, that such proceeds are likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner, which may result in frustrating any proceedings relating to their confiscation under Chapter III of the PML Act. It is submitted that before passing his order under Section 5 of the PML Act, the Respondent-Director had already acted under Section 17 of that Act by searching and seizing the subject property. It is submitted that once property is seized under sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the PML Act, purportedly on the ground that it was likely to be transferred, concealed or otherwise dealt with, the only option fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no substance in the Petitioners contention that having seized the property under Section 17 of the PML Act, the State was bound to apply for continuation of seizure under sub-section (4) of that section, and not exercise powers under Section 5 of the PML Act. The initial search followed by seizure may well be under Section 17 of the PML Act, but if the Director had reason to believe that the seized property was proceeds of crime and was likely to be dealt with by the person from whose possession it was seized, the Director may still choose to act under Section 5 of the PML Act and order its provisional attachment. The two provisions, namely, Sections 5 and 17 are not mutually exclusive alternative powers; there is no reason why they cann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at that time under Section 17 of the PML Act and placed in a designated bank account under the control of the Director. Insofar the argument of learned Counsel that likelihood of transfer or dealing with the property must exist on the very date of the order under Section 5 and not on any anterior date or on the date when order was passed under Section 17 of the PML Act, is concerend, that has already been dealt with by us above. The other leg of Counsel s submission that there was no material for arriving at the reason that the cash was, in any event, likely to be transferred or dealt with by the Petitioners, merely needs to be noted to be rejected on ex facie consideration. The fact that the property seized was hard cash, by itself and wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
